I wanted to offer my sympathies for the actions of "nme"
("Andreas"), and offer financial and other support if you ever
decide to pursue him legally or otherwise.

I realise you'd rather code than litigate, and I respect
that. ;-> But I thought you might appreciate the
gesture.

The incident was recently mentioned on OSI's license-discuss
list, which reminded me of the matter: As a member of the open
source community, I feel such deeds are immoral (not just
unlawful) and must not be tolerated. At minimum, I've taken the
step of listing G4L and "nme" on my knowledgebase's Licensing
and Law category[1] as a case study in copyright infringement
— and successor "Frank Stephen" as possibly doing likewise.[2]
With luck, this will increase public recognition of the wrong
committed.

You alone are entitled to file a DMCA complaint with
SourceForge.net: I'd be glad to draft it, if you'd like to send
one.

In case you care, here is my analysis regarding the nme
codebase. (However, I am not an attorney, so this is not
professional legal advice.) Clearly, nme stripping your author
credit is unlawful per statute in all Berne Convention
countries (and presumably others). Some have claimed that his
correcting that omission would have been enough. That is untrue
on two counts:

1. Because you specified the old BSD licence,
otherwise-lawful inclusion of your code in a GPL codebase
creates license conflict. The resulting derivative work is
lawful to create but cannot lawfully be redistributed, as doing
so violates the copyrights of the GPLed code's author. (By
contrast, a derivative work using your code with third party
under GPL + a licence exception permitting the old-BSD
advertising clause would not be encumbered by licence
conflict.)

2. "nme", in addition to unlawfully and immorally stripping
your author credit, purported to change your terms covering
your code to GPLv2, which is per-se copyright violation in
itself (because you alone are entitled to state licence terms
for your creation). On the other hand, any derivative work that
clearly identified the old-BSD-licensed portion would not
suffer that problem.

Last, my apologies on behalf of the Linux-using community.
Regardless of whether one personally likes or dislikes copyleft
licensing, the matter is plainly for each code author to
decide, and not respecting those authors' terms of use is just
plain wrong.